Kerala High Court
Sarath S Menon vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited on 3 April, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:33392
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2018 IN OA NO.809 OF 2016 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN OA:
SARATH S MENON,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O LATE C.R.SHASHI, CHANDRATHIN HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM
P.O, EADAKKUNNU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683576.
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:
1 BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TELECOM NEWDELHI-110 001.
2 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM
LIMITED, TELECOM, NEW DELHI-110001.
3 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER(ADMN), OFFICE OF THE
PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL,
TELECOM, ERNAKULAM-682016.
BY ADV V.SANTHARAM
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.04.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
K. V. JAYAKUMAR ,J.
Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in
O.A.No. 809 of 2016 dated 16.08.2018, the petitioner/applicant
preferred this original petition. As per the impugned order, the
Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the claim of
compassionate appointment of the petitioner/applicant.
2. The petitioner/applicant is the son of the late C.R. Sasi, who
died in harness on 06.07.2006. The deceased employee of the
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) left behind his wife, a
daughter, and the applicant, namely Sarath S. Menon. The
applicant is the elder amongst the children.
3. Earlier, the petitioner/applicant preferred O.A.No.732/2012
and the Tribunal disposed of the original application with a
direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter in
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
view of Annexure A7 communication issued in that case.
However, the request of the applicant was turned down vide
Annexure A8 order dated 14.03.2016. Impugning Annexure A8
order, the applicant preferred the original application No.809/2016.
The stand of the respondents, BSNL, is that only 5% of the
vacancies falling under the direct recruitment quota in any Group
-C or Group-D post are reserved for granting appointment on
compassionate grounds. The High Power Committee of BSNL
considered the case of the petitioner along with others and
rejected it.
4. The Tribunal noticing the rival contentions of the counsel for
the parties rejected the claim of the petitioner/applicant.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the order
of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
6. Adv. Mathews K. Philip, the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents, BSNL, submitted that no interference is warranted in
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
this matter.
7. On the other hand, Adv. Millu Dandapani, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
impugned order of the Tribunal is illegal and unsustainable as the
weightage points ought to be given to the applicant against the
family pension of Rs.2810/- is not the actual basic family pension.
The basic family pension of the petitioner was Rs. 1,686/-, which
ought to have been considered by the respondents for reckoning
the weightage points.
8. We have heard the rival submission of the counsel for the
parties and appraised the paper book.
9. The Tribunal noticing the rival contention of the counsel for
the parties dismissed the original application. The relevant
paragraphs of the order are extracted hereunder:
"6. The scheme for granting appointments on
compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a
Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
medical grounds thereby leaving his family in penury and
without any means of livelihood to relieve the family of the
Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to
help to get over the emergency. The details of the scheme as
brought out by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Perision, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of
India as per letter No. 14014/6/94-Estt. (D) on 19 th October,
1998 is at Annexure R1(a). As mentioned, this scheme is meant
to alleviate the difficulties of penury in the event of abrupt
death of a family member or his having to retire on medical
grounds. The scheme has been implemented in the respondent
BSNL organization also, adoption orders being Annexure R1(b).
7. In order to ensure that the scheme is implemented in a
transparent and non-discriminatory manner a marking system has
been introduced which specifically considers various factors that
indicate the financial condition of the family. These include the
income that the family and its members are getting, its account
of assets and liabilities and other relevant factors, as in several
occasions the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has pronounced
that granting of appointment on compassionate grounds without
assessing the financial position of the family is impermissible.
The marking system adopted for the purpose has been explained
at Annexure A2. This constitute the weightage point system for
assessment of indigent condition and persons getting 60% and
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
above are considered for appointment under the said scheme.
8. The controversy in this case is about the applicant having
obtained only 55 points and falling short of the required bench
mark for getting appointment. The crucial factor which has been
the subject of debate in this case has been the points that the
applicant has earned on account of the Basic Family Pension
factor. The table relating to Basic Family Pension is extracted
below from Annexure A2:
"Basic Family Pension
(IDA pattern or CDA+50%) Points Max.20 points
4250 & above Nil"
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
9. The question naturally revolves around what was the Basic
Family Pension that the applicant was earning. The department
while assessing the indigent condition, basing its judgment on
the pre-revised pension of Rs. 2,810/- allotted him a mark of 12
for this item. The contention of the applicant is that his basic
pension was only Rs. 1,686/- which would enable him to get 20
points instead of 12. This would necessarily bring him above the
bench mark by giving him an additional 8 points. This issue is
the central issue to be considered in this OA.
10. The respondents have termed the contention, the applicant
has raised that he is entitled to additional weightage points
under pension factor by taking into account the normal pension,
as baseless. It is submitted that the status of the family at the
time of the death of the official is to be taken as the basis of
allotment of weightage points. The family pension received at
enhanced rate immediately after the death of the official is the
criteria to be considered. To state that the pension should be
considered at reduced rate as is made out by the applicant is
not an acceptable argument for the simple reason that the family
pension he was entitled to and received immediately after the
death of the official was Rs. 2,810/- per month. During
arguments the learned counsel for the applicant raised a
contention that Rs. 2,810/- was the rate which was at post
revised levels. However, from Annexure A5(3) document, it is
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
clearly seen that Rs. 2,810/- is the pre-revised and Rs. 6,167/-is
the post revised rate. So the respondents cannot be faulted for
having taken the figure of Rs. 2,810/- and accordingly affixed
the weightage. Besides the respondents have averred that the
pension at enhanced rates immediately after the death or
medical retirement of the candidate has been the criteria
adopted in all cases coming up under the scheine and there is
no contention raised on the side of the applicant that this is not
so and he alone is being discriminated against."
10. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer the law laid
down by the Apex Court with regard to appointment on
compassionate grounds. The Apex Court in the decision in State
of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Others [2023 KHC 6219]
opined that, compassionate appointment is not a vested right
which can be exercised at any time in future. In this case, the
Apex Court had occasion to enumerate the principles of
compassionate appointment. Paragraph 7 of the judgment of
Debabrata Tiwari's case (supra) is extracted hereunder:
"7. Policy of Compassionate Appointment: The Rationale:
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
The majesty of death is that it is a great leveller for, it makes no
distinction between the young and the old or the rich and the poor.
Death being as a consequence of birth at some point of time is
inevitable for every being. Thus, while death is certain, its timing is
uncertain. Further, a deceased employee does not always leave
behind valuable assets; he may at times leave behind poverty to be
faced by the immediate members of his family. Therefore, what
should be done to ensure that death of an individual does not mean
economic death for his family? The State's obligation in this regard,
confined to its employees who die in harness, has given rise to
schemes and rules providing for compassionate appointment of an
eligible member of his family as an instance of providing immediate
succour to such a family. Support for such a provision has been
derived from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution of India,
i.e., Art.39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
7.1. It may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of this
Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate
appointment and the considerations that ought to guide
determination of claims for compassionate appointment.
i. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, 1989 (4) SCC
468, this Court observed that in all claims for appointment on
compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
appointment. That the purpose of providing appointment on
compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused due
to the death of the bread earner in the family. Such
appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to
redeem the family in distress.
ii. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994
(4) SCC 138, this Court observed that the object of granting
compassionate employment is to enable the family of a
deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis
by providing gainful employment to one of the dependants of
the deceased who is eligible for such employment. That mere
death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to
such source of livelihood; the Government or the public
authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of
the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that,
but for the provision of employment, the family will not be
able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the
eligible member of the family, provided a scheme or rules
provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said
case that compassionate appointment is not a vested right
which can be exercised at any time after the death of a
government servant. That the object being to enable the family
to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of
the death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate employment
cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
amount of time and after the crisis is overcome.
iii. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh,
1997 (8) SCC 85, ('Hakim Singh') this Court placed much
emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in which
claims for compassionate appointment are made by the
dependants and decided by the concerned authority. This Court
cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of
compassionate appointment is to give succour to the family to
tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen the
dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole
earning member. Therefore, this Court held that it would not
be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein
on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after the death of
the government employee. That such a direction would amount
to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it
were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession.
iv. This Court in State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta,
AIR 2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for
compassionate appointment to be considered reasonable and
permissible, it must be shown that a sudden crisis occurred in
the family of the deceased as a result of death of an employee
who had served the State and died while in service. It was
further observed that appointment on compassionate grounds
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
cannot be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be made
available to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of
service rendered by the deceased employee.
v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court
on the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is
given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship
which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the
bread earner vide Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1996 (1)
SCC 301. When an appointment is made on compassionate
grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it
seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless
compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi,
2007 (6) SCC 162. In the same vein is the decision of this
Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, 2008
(11) SCC 384, wherein it was declared that appointment on
compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a
means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a
sudden financial crisis.
vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmed
Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court were that
the government employee (father of the applicant therein) died
in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant
after four and half years in September, 1991 which was
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June,
1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in
July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more
than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the
father of the applicant. This Court remarked that the said facts
were relevant and material as they would demonstrate that the
family survived in spite of death of the employee. Therefore,
this Court held that granting compassionate appointment after
a lapse of a considerable amount of time after the death of
the government employee, would not be in furtherance of the
object of a scheme for compassionate appointment.
vii. In Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed that
compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule
that appointment to any public post in the service of the State
has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with
Art.14 and Art.16 of the Constitution. That the basis of the
policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased
employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship
upon the untimely death of the employee while in service.
That it is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis
for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate
appointment. The pertinent observations of this Court have
been extracted as under:
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
'41. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the
Respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the record
that the Writ Petition before the High Court was instituted on
11 May 2015. The application for compassionate appointment
was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15 January 2008 the
Additional Secretary had required that the amount realized by
way of pension be included in the income statement of the
family. The Respondent waited thereafter for a period in
excess of seven years to move a petition Under Art.226 of the
Constitution. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has
emphasized that the basis of a scheme of compassionate
appointment lies in the need of providing immediate assistance
to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of
immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the
dependant in seeking compassionate appointment.'
11. In Phoolwati v. Union of India & Others [1991 KHC
843], the Apex Court held that in all claims for appointment on
compassionate claims, there should not be any delay in
appointment.
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
12. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar
and Another [1996 KHC 1610] the Apex Court expressed the view
that the purpose of compassionate appointment is intended to meet
the minimum financial problem being suffered by the members of
the family of the deceased employee. It is an exception to the
general rule of open recruitment.
13. In State of U.P. v. Paras Nath, [(1998) 2 SCC 412] it
was observed that the purpose of providing employment to a
dependent of a government servant dying in harness in preference
to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family
of the employee on account of his unexpected death, while in
service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments
are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules
providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide
immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased
government servant.
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
14. In Canara Bank v. Ajith Kumar G.K. [2025 SCC OnLIne
SC 290], the Apex Court observed that, compassionate appointment
can be granted only in handful of cases.
"There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable
uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would
warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its
own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in
mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in "hand-to-
mouth" cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought
to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are
satisfied. Such "hand-to-mouth" cases would include cases where
the family of the deceased is 'below poverty line' and struggling
to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising
out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be
distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of
the death of the bread earner."
15. The Central Administrative Tribunal appreciated the law
and fact in the correct perspective and arrived at a conclusion, in
our view. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel for the
parties, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
the Central Administrative Tribunal. No ground for interference is
made out.
The OP (CAT) fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
msp
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 29/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01.03.2008
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE-A2 PHOTOCOPY OF WEIGHTAGE POINT SYSTEM REFERRED
TO IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
ANNEXURE-A3 PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 30.05.2012 OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT VIDE NO.268-
79/2002/PERS.IV.
ANNEXURE-A4 PHOTOCOPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT, DATED 22.10.2013, VIDE NO.273-
18/2005-PERS.IV, REFERRED TO IN THE ORIGINAL
APPLICATION.
ANNEXURE-A5 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION SHEET ISSUED TO THE
APPLICANT VIDE NO.ES/98-13/RTI/CO/2016-
17.VI54 DATED 27/07/2016 ISSUED BY THE CGMT,
BSNL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM.
ANNEXURE-A6 PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 15/04/2016 VIDE.ADMN/EK257/4/2011-16/35
REFERRED TO IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
ANNEXURE-A7 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 24.03.2014
RENDERED IN.OA.NO.732 OF 2012.
ANNEXURE-A8 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.R&E/ENK-60/SSM/32 DATED
14.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE-R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF
INDIA UNDER LETTER NO.14014/6/94-ESTT(D)-
DATED 9TH OCTOBER 1998.
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
ANNEXURE-R1(B) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.273-18/2005-PERS.IV
DATED 27/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE-R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.268-79/2002-
PERS.IV DATED 27/12/2006.
ANNEXURE-R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18/05/2004
ISSUED BY BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EXAMINATION TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE-R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19/11/2008
ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,
TELECOM ANGAMALY.
ANNEXURE-R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE TAHASILDAR VIDE NO.HS26TL/68 DATED
04.04.2008 TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE-R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED REPORT DATED
09.09.2009, ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL
ENGINEER BSNL, ANGAMALY.
ANNEXURE-A8 TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER NO.F-
681 DATED 30.05.2007 SANCTIONING FAMILY
PENSION.
ANNEXURE-R1(H) A COPY OF THE LETTER NO.268-GEN.CORR/2010-
PERS.IV DATED 13.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER PERS IV, BSNL.
ANNEXURE-R1(I) A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM DATED
01.03.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE BSNL.
ANNEXURE-A9 TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION SYSTEM ORDER NO.F-
681 DATED 30.05.2017 SHOWING SANCTION OF
FAMILY PENSION.
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.809 OF 2016 DATED
24.09.2016 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
2025:KER:33392
OP (CAT) NO. 29 OF 2021
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
15.11.2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON
23.11.2016 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
APPLICANT DATED 12.05.2017 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURE.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT
DATED 11.07.2017 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, MA
NO.276 OF 2018 DATED 28/12/2018 IN OA NO.809
OF 2016 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS IN MA NO.276 OF 20018 DATED
26.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2018 IN
OA NO.809 OF 2016.
